DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s response of June 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 and 19 have been canceled. No claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 112(b) rejection concerning the claim language concerning a first color conversion layer, a second color conversion layer, and a transmission layer, the claim amendments have addressed this issue and this rejection has been withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(b) rejection concerning the plurality of first openings in the encapsulation layer, Applicant argues “the encapsulation layer of the present invention is not a series of disconnected, island-like structures. Rather it is a single, physically continuous layer that is patterned to have the first openings” (Remarks of 6/12/2026 page 8). As explained in the 112(b) rejection, this is not the understanding of the examiner. The disclosure describes the pixel defining layer 360 and the bank 320 as arranged as a matrix or a physically continuous layer that is patterned to have openings. They are described as “disposed in the non-emission area NLA and partition each emission area BLA, RLA, or GLA” [0062], the NLA area shown in fig. 1 as the space surrounding each emission area BLA, RLA and GLA. If the encapsulation layer is also a physically continuous layer that is patterned to have openings, a clear representation in one or more of the figures, or a clear description in the specification should be cited. In the absence of such evidence, the rejection is maintained. The examiner notes that, even if the encapsulation layer is a series of disconnected, island-like structures, the bank could be described as in the area between the disconnected structures, as shown in fig. 2. Claim language describing the area occupied by the bank layer as the space or area between encapsulation structures may better define what is physically shown than “first openings”.
With regard to the arguments directed at the subject matter of claims 9 and 19, now incorporated into claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that “Kim’s spaces SP are not an encapsulation layer. Kim expressly states that ‘a plurality of spaces SP may be defined by the partition wall DMb, an upper display substrate 200, and a lower display substrate 100’”. “Thus, SP is described as empty space or volume bounded by surroundings structures, not as a material layer” (Remarks of 6/12/2026 pages 10-11). Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Kim expressly describe that the space GP/SP may be filled with a filler (see Kim [0130]) and therefore is a structural layer. Because space GP/SP is filled and is therefore a structural/encapsulation layers, banks DMb are disposed in the “first openings” of the encapsulation layer, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As described in both independent claims 1 and 11, the claimed invention is a display device having a “plurality of light emitting devices disposed on a substrate, each including a first electrode, an emission layer, and a second electrode”. The display further has a pixel defining layer, a bank and a spacer. The pixel defining layer is described as including “a plurality of openings”, and the bank is described as including “a plurality of second openings”. It is understood, and as described in the specification that the pixel defining layer, the bank and the spacer are arranged as a matrix, “disposed in the non-emission area NLA and partition each emission area BLA, RLA, or GLA” [0062]. Therefore, the plurality of openings in the pixel defining layer and the plurality of second openings in the bank, are the openings in which the plurality of light emitting devices (BLA, RLA, GLA) are located (as arranged in figs. 1 and 7-11). A confusion arises, however, in understanding the physical arrangement intended by the claim language describing the encapsulation layer as having “a plurality of first openings”. The encapsulation layer is “covering the plurality of light emitting devices”. It is claimed, and shown in the disclosure at 420 as being disposed over the plurality of light emitting devices, not as a matrix (continuous layer having holes or openings), but as islands of encapsulant surrounded by the bank 320. If the encapsulation layer is a series of islands of encapsulant disposed in the plurality of second openings in the bank, how can the encapsulation layer have “a plurality of first openings”? The claim language should better reflect the physical arrangement and relationship between the bank and the encapsulation layer, and the plurality of first openings (in the encapsulation layer) and the plurality of second openings (in the bank). For prior art analysis, the disclosed invention will be used as guidance where the encapsulation layer is shown as islands of encapsulant in the plurality of second openings of the bank.
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18 and 20 are rejected as inheriting the deficiencies from above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200273929 A1.
With regard to claims 1 and 11, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel; and a color filter panel overlapping the display panel in a plan view, wherein
the display panel includes: a first substrate; BS1 a plurality of light emitting devices (OLED) disposed on the first substrate BS1, each including a first electrode (AE), an emission layer (ENL, and a second electrode (CE);
a pixel defining layer (PDL) including a plurality of openings overlapping the first electrode (AE) in a plan view;
an encapsulation layer (SP with filler [0130]) covering the plurality of light emitting devices (OLED) and including a plurality of first openings overlapping the pixel defining layer in a plan view;
a bank (DMb) disposed on the encapsulation layer, overlapping the plurality of first openings in a plan view, and including a plurality of second openings overlapping the plurality of light emitting devices in a plan view; and
a first color conversion layer (CCF-R), a second color conversion layer (CCF-G), and a transmission layer (CCF-B), respectively disposed inside corresponding ones of the plurality of second openings, and
the color filter panel includes:
a second substrate (BS2);
a color filter (BP1) disposed on the second substrate (BS2); and
a spacer (SHD) disposed on the color filter and including a colored material;
wherein at least a portion of the bank (DMb) is disposed inside the plurality of first openings [0121-0141] (see response to arguments above for further explanation of the structural encapsulation layer).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses that the plurality of second openings each includes: a first emission area (PXA-B) overlapping the transmission layer in a plan view; a second emission area (PXA-R) overlapping the first color conversion layer in a plan view; and a third emission area (PXA-G) overlapping the second color conversion layer in a plan view.
With regard to claims 3 and 13, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses the display further comprising:
a first color filter (CF-B) overlapping the transmission layer in a plan view; a second color filter (CF-R) overlapping the first color conversion layer in a plan view; and a third color filter (CF-G) overlapping the second color conversion layer in a plan view.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses the display further comprising: a first dummy color filter (BP2) disposed on the spacer; a second dummy color filter (BP2) disposed on the first dummy color filter; and a third dummy color filter (BP2) disposed on the second dummy color filter.
With regard to claims 5 and 15, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses that the spacer (SHD) surrounds a portion of at least one of the first emission area, the second emission area, and the third emission area in a plan view.
With regard to claims 6 and 16, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses that the spacer (SHD) completely surrounds at least one of the first emission area, the second emission area, and the third emission area in a plan view.
With regard to claims 10 and 20, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses that the pixel defining layer (PDL), the bank (DMb), the spacer (SHD), the first dummy color filter (BP2), the second dummy color filter (BP2), and the third dummy color filter overlap each other in a plan view (BP2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Song, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0050388 A1.
With regard to claims 7 and 17, Kim, fig. 11A, discloses that the encapsulation layer includes:
an encapsulation (SP) layer including the plurality of first openings overlapping the pixel defining layer in a plan view; and an inorganic encapsulation layer (CL) disposed on the organic encapsulation layer.
Kim does not expressly disclose the material of the transparent encapsulation layer (SP) having the openings. Song, in fig. 4 discloses an filling/encapsulation layer 70 comprising an organic material having high transparency and adhesion [0065]. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the organic encapsulation material of Song in the display of Kim, providing high transparency and adhesion.
With regard to claims 8 and 18, the Kim/Song combination discloses that the bank (DMb) contacts the inorganic encapsulation layer (CL).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas A Hollweg whose telephone number is (571)270-1739. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew W Such can be reached at (571)272-1570. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights